No, not that one. The one that is, for a Democrat, the worst insult of all:
"Yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton may still have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination. But it’s probably smaller than the chance that a continued slugfest will hand the White House to John McCain. (...)
Mrs. Clinton’s chances of winning are negligible, barring some major development.
Meanwhile, the big winner of the Democratic fist-fighting is Senator McCain. A Gallup poll released Wednesday found that 19 percent of Mr. Obama’s supporters said they would vote for Mr. McCain in the general election if Mrs. Clinton were the nominee. More startling, 28 percent of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters said they would defect to Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama were the nominee. (...)
If Mrs. Clinton can run a high-minded, civil campaign and rein in her proxies, then she has every right to continue through the next few primaries, and the Democrats might even benefit from the bolstered attention and turnout. But if the brawl continues, then she and her husband may be remembered by many people who long admired them as having the same effect on Mr. Obama this November that Ralph Nader had on Al Gore in 2000.
Do the Clintons really want to risk becoming the Naders of 2008?"
That is exactly the right question for the Clintons to ask themselves. The superdelegates, on the other hand, should ask themselves a different question, namely: do they want to go on enabling Clinton now that she has become the Nader of 2008?
At the outset, we had a number of fine candidates for President. One of them is now overwhelmingly likely to go to the convention ahead in pledged delegates and the popular vote. You can play with Slate's Delegate Counter here; I put in some truly Clinton-friendly numbers -- PA 65-35, WV 75-25, NC for Obama 53-47, Puerto Rico 67-33, etc., etc -- and Obama still came out ahead by over 70 delegates. Ben Smith runs down her chances at taking the popular vote here. They look pretty slim to me.
The superdelegates have every right to vote any way they want. But I can't see them deciding to give the nomination to a candidate who isn't ahead either in pledged delegates or in the popular vote absent some genuine disaster befalling the Obama campaign. Provoking that disaster is, therefore, Clinton's only remaining winning strategy. Jake Tapper talked to an anonymous Democratic Party official:
"What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?
She will have to "break his back", the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.
"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?""
No. It's not.
I'm sure that Senator Clinton believes she is doing the right thing by staying in the race. If I had to guess, I'd say that Ralph Nader thought he was doing the right thing by running for President in 2000. He wasn't right then, and Clinton isn't right now.
If the party leadership won't stage an intervention and try to get her to withdraw, that's just one more reason to conclude that we need new leadership.